IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v39y2021i3d10.1007_s40273-020-00987-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Utility Analysis of a Dolutegravir-Based Versus Low-Dose Efavirenz-Based Regimen for the Initial Treatment of HIV-Infected Patients in Cameroon (NAMSAL ANRS 12313 Trial)

Author

Listed:
  • Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah

    (Aix-Marseille University)

  • Marie Libérée Nishimwe

    (Aix-Marseille University
    ORS PACA, Observatoire Régional de la Santé Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur)

  • Tamara Tovar-Sanchez

    (Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD)-INSERM, and University Hospital of Montpellier)

  • Martial Lantche Wandji

    (Central Hospital of Yaoundé)

  • Mireille Mpoudi-Etame

    (Military Hospital)

  • Gwenaëlle Maradan

    (ORS PACA, Observatoire Régional de la Santé Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur)

  • Pierrette Omgba Bassega

    (Cité Verte Hospital)

  • Marie Varloteaux

    (Central Hospital of Yaoundé)

  • Alice Montoyo

    (ANRS)

  • Charles Kouanfack

    (Central Hospital of Yaoundé
    University of Dshang)

  • Eric Delaporte

    (Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD)-INSERM, and University Hospital of Montpellier)

  • Sylvie Boyer

    (Aix-Marseille University)

Abstract

Objectives Evidence comparing the economic and patient values of the World Health Organization’s preferred (dolutegravir 50 mg [DTG]-based) and alternative (low-dose [400 mg] efavirenz [EFV400]-based) first-line antiretroviral regimens is limited. We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs), costs, and the cost-utility of DTG- versus EFV400-based regimens in treatment-naive HIV-1 adults in the randomised NAMSAL ANRS 12313 trial in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Methods We used clinical data, PROs, and health resource use data collected in the trial’s first 96 weeks (2016–2019). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were computed using utility scores obtained from the 12-item Short Form (SF-12) generic health scale. Other PROs included perceived symptoms, depression, anxiety, and stress. In the 96-week base-case analysis, we estimated the unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted (1) mean costs (in US$, 2016 values) and QALYs/patient, (2) incremental costs and QALYs/patient, and (3) net health benefit (NHB). Outcomes were extrapolated over 5 and 10 years. Uncertainty was assessed using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve and scenario and cost-effective price threshold analyses. Results In the base-case analysis, the NHB (95% confidence interval) for the DTG-based regimen relative to the EFV400-based regimen was 0.056 (− 0.037 to 0.153), corresponding to an 88% probability of DTG being cost-effective. A 10% decrease in this regimen’s price (from $5.2 to $4.7/month) would increase its cost-effectiveness probability to 95%. When extrapolating outcomes over 5 and 10 years, the DTG-based regimen had a 100% probability of being cost-effective for a large range of cost-effectiveness thresholds. Conclusions At 2020 antiretroviral drug prices, a DTG-based first-line regimen should be preferred over an EFV400-based regimen in sub-Saharan Africa. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02777229.

Suggested Citation

  • Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah & Marie Libérée Nishimwe & Tamara Tovar-Sanchez & Martial Lantche Wandji & Mireille Mpoudi-Etame & Gwenaëlle Maradan & Pierrette Omgba Bassega & Marie Varloteaux & Alice Montoyo, 2021. "Cost-Utility Analysis of a Dolutegravir-Based Versus Low-Dose Efavirenz-Based Regimen for the Initial Treatment of HIV-Infected Patients in Cameroon (NAMSAL ANRS 12313 Trial)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 331-343, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00987-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00987-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00987-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-020-00987-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glick, Henry A. & Doshi, Jalpa A. & Sonnad, Seema S. & Polsky, Daniel, 2014. "Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199685028.
    2. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    3. Beth Woods & Paul Revill & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2015. "Country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further research," Working Papers 109cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    5. S. Boyer & M. L. Nishimwe & L. Sagaon-Teyssier & L. March & S. Koulla-Shiro & M.-Q. Bousmah & R. Toby & M. P. Mpoudi-Etame & N. F. Ngom Gueye & A. Sawadogo & C. Kouanfack & L. Ciaffi & B. Spire & E. D, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness of Three Alternative Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients in West and Central Africa," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 45-60, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Journal round-up: PharmacoEconomics 39(3)
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-04-05 06:00:12

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Osvaldo Ulises Garay & Marie Libérée Nishimwe & Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah & Asmaa Janah & Pierre-Marie Girard & Geneviève Chêne & Laetitia Moinot & Luis Sagaon-Teyssier & Jean-Luc Meynard & Bruno Spire &, 2019. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Standard Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Viral Suppression in France (ANRS 140 DREAM)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 505-515, December.
    2. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    3. Torbjørn Wisløff & Richard White & Olav Dalgard & Ellen J. Amundsen & Hinta Meijerink & Astrid Louise Løvlie & Hilde Kløvstad, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Direct-Acting Antivirals for Hepatitis C in Norway," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 591-601, May.
    4. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    5. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    6. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    7. Salah Ghabri & Françoise F. Hamers & Jean Michel Josselin, 2016. "Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers’ Submissions to the French National Authority for Health," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 617-624, June.
    8. Amr Makady & Ard Veelen & Páll Jonsson & Owen Moseley & Anne D’Andon & Anthonius Boer & Hans Hillege & Olaf Klungel & Wim Goettsch, 2018. "Using Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Practice: A Comparative Study of Five HTA Agencies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 359-368, March.
    9. Claxton, Karl & Asaria, Miqdad & Chansa, Collins & Jamison, Julian & Lomas, James & Ochalek, Jessica & Paulden, Mike, 2019. "Accounting for timing when assessing health-related policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100038, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Beth Woods & Claire Rothery & Paul Revill & Timothy Hallett & Andrew Phillips & Karl Claxton., 2018. "Setting research priorities in Global Health:Appraising the value of evidence generation activities to support decision-making in health care," Working Papers 155cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    11. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    12. Alec Morton & Amanda I. Adler & David Bell & Andrew Briggs & Werner Brouwer & Karl Claxton & Neil Craig & Alastair Fischer & Peter McGregor & Pieter van Baal, 2016. "Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 933-938, August.
    13. Jessica Ochalek & Karl Claxton & Paul Revill & Mark Sculpher & Alexandra Rollinger, 2016. "Supporting the development of an essential health package: principles and initial assessment for Malawi," Working Papers 136cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    14. Xiao Zang & Emanuel Krebs & Linwei Wang & Brandon D. L. Marshall & Reuben Granich & Bruce R. Schackman & Julio S. G. Montaner & Bohdan Nosyk, 2019. "Structural Design and Data Requirements for Simulation Modelling in HIV/AIDS: A Narrative Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1219-1239, October.
    15. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.
    16. Claire Rothery & Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & David Epstein & Rosanna Tarricone & Mark Sculpher, 2017. "Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 109-123, February.
    17. Zoë Pieters & Mark Strong & Virginia E. Pitzer & Philippe Beutels & Joke Bilcke, 2020. "A Computationally Efficient Method for Probabilistic Parameter Threshold Analysis for Health Economic Evaluations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(5), pages 669-679, July.
    18. Padraig Dixon & George Davey Smith & Stephanie von Hinke & Neil M. Davies & William Hollingworth, 2016. "Estimating Marginal Healthcare Costs Using Genetic Variants as Instrumental Variables: Mendelian Randomization in Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1075-1086, November.
    19. Peter J. Neumann & David D. Kim & Thomas A. Trikalinos & Mark J. Sculpher & Joshua A. Salomon & Lisa A. Prosser & Douglas K. Owens & David O. Meltzer & Karen M. Kuntz & Murray Krahn & David Feeny & An, 2018. "Future Directions for Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Health and Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 767-777, October.
    20. Patricia J. Rodriguez & Zachary J. Ward & Michael W. Long & S. Bryn Austin & Davene R. Wright, 2021. "Applied Methods for Estimating Transition Probabilities from Electronic Health Record Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 143-152, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:39:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00987-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.